making mod_proxy_wstunnel to support other protocol via parameters

[jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

In fact the tunnel allows any upgradable protocol to work with
mod_proxy_wstunnel, checking for  WebSocket prevents it, does it make
sense to allow a list or a single parameter directive to allow other
protocol (for example that works with "jboss-remoting" and probably a
bunch of others)?

Comments?

Cheers

Jean-Frederic

Re: making mod_proxy_wstunnel to support other protocol via parameters

[jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>]

On 12/21/2016 05:40 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (I don't know the answer to your question in particular, but I think there
>> was also discussion a while ago about a mod_proxy_tcp, which might be
>> relevant to the discussion?)
> 
> There is already duplication between mod_proxy_wstunnell and
> mod_proxy_connect because they are both basically setup + TCP tunnell.
> 
> I am not sure how usable the async stuff in wstunnell is. it would be
> awesome if it worked/worked better and other modules that were
> basically just tunnelling got it for free.  I think the approach is
> only really valid for things very similar to TCP tunnels.
> 

Actually the mod_tcp / mod_proxy_tcp / mod_ssl_tcp patch isn't merged in
trunk and I am locking for a quick solution in httpd-2.4.x

I will try the patch and see if that helps.

Cheers

Jean-Frederic

Re: making mod_proxy_wstunnel to support other protocol via parameters

[Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I don't know the answer to your question in particular, but I think there
> was also discussion a while ago about a mod_proxy_tcp, which might be
> relevant to the discussion?)

There is already duplication between mod_proxy_wstunnell and
mod_proxy_connect because they are both basically setup + TCP tunnell.

I am not sure how usable the async stuff in wstunnell is. it would be
awesome if it worked/worked better and other modules that were
basically just tunnelling got it for free.  I think the approach is
only really valid for things very similar to TCP tunnels.

Re: making mod_proxy_wstunnel to support other protocol via parameters

[Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com>]

On 12/21/2016 08:25 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> In fact the tunnel allows any upgradable protocol to work with
> mod_proxy_wstunnel, checking for  WebSocket prevents it, does it make
> sense to allow a list or a single parameter directive to allow other
> protocol (for example that works with "jboss-remoting" and probably a
> bunch of others)?

(I don't know the answer to your question in particular, but I think 
there was also discussion a while ago about a mod_proxy_tcp, which might 
be relevant to the discussion?)

--Jacob